Talk:Baruch Goldstein

DOB
Would it be possible to explain in the article why there is confusion over his Date of Birth? it currently says "9 December or 12 December 1956" ... why? --Storkk 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated, but per months ago - Mass murderers has more grounding in reliable sources. -- Avi 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists vs. Category:Israeli mass murderers
Per Category:Mass murderers, any one person should not be in both categories. Only one or the other. Please come up with a consensus and stick with it. Thank you. -- Avi 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, err, why are we voting on this? What happened to what reliable sources say? Terrorist is a stretch, imho. Mass murderer seems to make more sense, but again, why not just defer to reliable sources like we are suppose to? Anyways, carry on. --Tom 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note the date [[image:smile.gif]]. -- Avi 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I see, you have to check out the reasons. Mass murderers kill people because of the different reasons, but they are scarcely driven by extreme political ideas, such as extreme national ideology - people, who kill other people to cause international war, are called terrorists. This nazi motherfucker (baruch goldstein) killed a bunch of people exactly because of this reason. So, he's a terrorist no doubt.85.250.249.58 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Ronnie S.


 * If I have to pick one, I choose terrorists. However, I believe he should be in both.  He was a terrorist that has performed a mass murder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.228.188.141  (talk • contribs) 13:00, January 23, 2007   (UTC)
 * But per wiki policy, he cannot be in both. -- Avi 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support -- Shabeki 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Category:Israeli mass murderers
Support -- Avi 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support It's still not clear to me that Goldstein's actions -- as reprehensible as they were -- were intended as terrorism. Mass murderer is a less than perfect fit, but is probably more accurate. 71.172.23.92 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure involved editors are not supposed to "close" discussions like this. The correct closing would in any case be "no consensus". &mdash;Ashley Y 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamgar Commission Minutes - published?
We have various things cited to "Shamgar Commission Minutes". Can someone provide evidence that those minutes are published so that they pass the requirements for article sources? We aren't allowed to cite unpublished archives. --Zerotalk 11:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary text appearing in Google
When doing a google search for Baruch Goldstein, the first thing that comes up is the wikipedia article. That is well and good, but the summary text is "Here lies the saint, Dr. Baruch Kappel Goldstein, blessed be the memory of the righteous and holy man, may the Lord avenge his blood, who devoted his soul ..." A cursory review of older edits does not seem to show that this text was ever a significant part of the article. Does wikipedia have any control over what appear in google searchs, or is this just some strange artifact of the googlization process? Wachholder 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha. Nevermind. Wachholder 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"fingernail" speech
Although one can find thousands of internet sites which reproduce the meme about a Rabbi making a speech saying "one million arabs are not worth the fingernail..." etc., the person to whom this is attributed does not appear to exist outside this claimed quotation. Even if he does exist, he's certainly not notable in any way. Inflammatory, and possible spurious, "quotations" are not encyclopedic content. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg. Re Baruch G. I didn't find the 'fingernail' quote in 'thousands of internet sites'. It is cited by a fine historian, Ian S. Lustik, published by the American Council of Foreign Relations. It is sourced impeccably according to Wiki rules for sourcing. Lustik did not get it from trawling the internet. It is immaterial who precisely said this, for the citation reflects on the way certain rabbinical circles (want the whole file?) can praise a man who had just murdered 29 people. You have therefore once more abused your function, availing yourself of subjective non-wiki grounds, in order to censor material you find distasteful. You challenged me on Chomsky at 'Hebron' because he was 'unreliable' 'polemical'(your personal view, not that of historians). You can't challenge me on Lustik, so you now fiddle around with speculations that might justify your removing material you dislike. None of the criteria adduced to erase the quotation conform to wiki rules, and thus in erasing it, you have documented your bias, and abuse of those rules. For the record, a copy of this will be posted on your talk page.Nishidani 08:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, can you provide a link to the material you want to add to this article?--Tom 14:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I don't need an internet link, since a book citation is stronger evidence than anything you get sweeping the web, where so much information is jiggered to fit the poster's political or moral prejudices. Perhaps the Perrin is not a Rabbi, perhaps the NYTs got it wrong. In which case, I hope some one will guide the perplexed (I never mentioned Perrin in the post by the way. It is Jayjg would wants the citation associated with his name), and clear up the matter. But since you ask, here are the details.

Jayjg’s not interested in wiki rules of evidence, but in purging Jewish sites of anything he dislikes, often in my case, things written by distinguished Jewish scholars, who, like myself, happen to think differently about the history and culture of that extraordinary world. The citation he challenged, then after much hesitation, removed, comes from a book, from a scholar with impeccable credentials, by the Council on Foreign Relations. The relevant passage reads:-


 * “If the motive of stopping the peace process can explain the political intent behind the Hebron mosque massacre, it does not explain how such extreme tactics can be justified in the minds of people who are manifestly not insane. It does not explain how a rabbi speaking at Goldstein's funeral could be applauded for declaring that "one million Arabs aren't worth one Jewish fingernail." Nor can it explain why so many hundreds and even thousands of heavily armed settlers with similar beliefs are living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and why they have as much influence as they do over Israeli politics. The answers to these questions lie in the ideological and cultural cocoon surrounding activist Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. This protective, animating web of unquestioned beliefs-about Jews, gentiles, history, redemption, and the Land of Israels the product of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, the single most successful extra-parliamentary movement in the country's history. The beliefs, objectives, and influence of its adherents are the subject of this book.” Ian S.Lustik, For The Land and The Lord, Council on Foreign Relations, (1988) 1994 Preface to the 1994 reprint. If you don't believe the transcript I give, check it out in any decent American library.

Note that Lustik does not refer to a certain Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, the name mentioned as author of the remark in The New York Times February 28th, 1994 p.1, so often cited, as I now learn, on the Net. The article in question generated a letter from Rabbi Alan W. Miller, Clinical Associate Prof. of Theology in Psychiatry, Cornell Medical College New York, March 1, 1994, printed by the Times in response to its report of the 28th. Rabbi Miller’s letter, dated March 1, 1994, was published in The Times' letters column on the 9th of the same month, and reads:-


 * "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail," said Rabbi Yaacov Perrin in his eulogy of Dr. Baruch Goldstein (news article, Feb. 28). The original Hebraic phraseology comes from the Midrash to Deuteronomy which, typically, elaborates on the sparse biblical description of the death of Moses. God informs Moses that He can either pardon the Israelites for having made the Golden Calf or permit Moses to enter the Promised Land, but not both, whereupon Moses immediately responds, "Let Moses and a thousand like him be destroyed but let not the fingernail of a single Israelite be harmed."  That the lunatic fringe of the ultra-orthodox distort the ethical humanism of all that is noblest in the Zionist dream is not enough. They also diabolically distort Jewish sacred texts out of all recognition. The question "Who is a Jew?" begins to assume unforeseen dimensions when "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

Of course, Jayjg couldn’t give, to cite the old countryman’s expression, a rodent’s rectum for this evidence. If you put it up, he would probably say, ‘Unacceptable. See wiki rules on verification and reliable sourcing’. I (note ‘I’) will only permit a link to an audio.tape registering the exact words, made at the occasion of the funeral, with accompanying photographic material allowing me to see if the lips of the said Rabbi can be interpreted as moving in such a way as to pronounce those words in Hebrew. And if you came up with this, he would only then probably say, ‘Violation of copyright. That tape is copyrighted by a friend of mine at Kiryat Arba,.’ and therefore cannot be cited on wikipedia. See rules for… '(ad infinitum) His recent editing around here is a disgrace, and I would report it, but for the fact I was trained as a child never to snitch, or have much regard for monitors, their sidekicks and authorities (other than erudite ones) in general. For the moment I am observing, waiting to see how scrupulously Tewfik and Jayjg apply their editing of these texts to the recent 'reference' source cited by Jaakobou on the Hebron Massacre Page. That will be interesting. Regards Nishidani 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nishandani, even if the quote were factual, who cares what "Rabbi Yaacov Perrin" has to say? Who is he that we should note his opinion on anything? Tell me more about him, please? Also, please comment only on article content, not other editors, per WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg.

You're muddying the waters. The issue is simple. (1) I cited a remark, and sourced it to an impeccable authority. (2) You dislike that material, but could not remove it, because the authority quoted fits all wikipedia conditions for 'reliable' sourcing. (3) Since you could not challenge me directly on this, you endeavoured to question the veracity of what Lustik reported. In making this step, you violated a wiki rule, that cited material does not have to be truthful, but reliably sourced. You are raising the issue, irrelevant to wiki articles, as to the veracity of what a reliable source reported. Secondly, you are trying to get me to violate the rule about original research by insinuating a request that the quote, which you identify as coming from Perrin, of whose reality you entertain doubts, be further subject to analysis to prove its reliability or the truthfulness of the report. (4) I even obliged you in this illegal request, not on the page,which would be improper, but here, by giving two direct quotes, from a reliable source, the New York Times, with dates and authors. (5) What is your reply? even if the quote were factual, who cares what "Rabbi Yaacov Perrin" has to say?. In asserting this you have gone on public record as being in egregious contempt of wiki procedures of editing, for you now allow, faced with the extra documentation, that the quotation from Lustik (a) could be truthful (b) the person to whom it is attributed in other sources may exist, but (c) 'who cares?'

(6)Let me remind you that 'some care' for the rules and procedures governing what may be cited. You don't, for here you are asserting that a quotation that fits all the criteria established for wiki can be challenged because you don't like it, you don't 'care' for it, i.e. it disturbs you.

You then add:- Who is he that we should note his opinion on anything''? I.e., he is a 'nobody' and therefore cannot be cited ('extraordinary claims' stuff). Speciously clever, but again a violation of policy. Neither I nor Lustik mentioned the name associated in the New York Times with a Rabbi Perrin. It is the remark that we are interested in, not the person.

(7)'Tell me more about him, please?' Again, you are violating wiki policy, abusing your editorial position by insisting that a perfectly suitable quote be the object of detailed 'original research' by me. I repeat, you are in patent violation on several counts, of wiki procedures, and your unsubtle attempts to draw me into other areas ('original research', for example, so that you can then obtain a valid warrant on rule violation to sustain your original arbitrary erasure of the quote) are manifest abuses of the protocols of wiki editing.

p.s. I would remind you that Jaakobou has violated, on the Hebron massacre page, the rules regarding foreign language material. I have examined it, as both you and Tewfik should have, and regard it as an attempt to blindside the contributors to this article by misleading references. For others out there, who do not read Hebrew, he is required to provide a translation, or otherwise provide an English language source.


 * 'In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.'

Nishidani 09:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Nishandani, I'm not "muddying the waters". There's no reason to imagine that this quotation is in any way notable; not every single thing quoted in a newspaper becomes important information for a Wikipedia article. There is no indication that Perrin is notable in any particular way; indeed, he does not appear to exist beyond that one citation, regardless of its endless repetitions. If a significant Israeli politician had said it, it might be notable, but this is just meaningless POV-filler. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've tried to reason with you, I have then disengaged, and now I will proceed further towards an eventual arbitration.

(1) I cited Ian Lustik, a reliable and reputable historian, in accordance with wiki rules. (2) As documented here, you removed the quote, on subjective grounds. That, in your view, 'the quotation. .is not notable' is wholly irrelevant. Lustik is a trained historian, you are just somebody, not particularly notable, out there who objects to what he records. You have no right therefore to censor what a trained historian, Jewish to boot, has been cited as writing. Perrin is immaterial, since Lustik does not mention him. Only you do. Your objection is ideological, in defence of those who are on record as praising a mass murderer. That, only that, explains your intervention.Nishidani 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to forget that we are editors here, and must make editorial decisions. Lustik's alleged ethnicity is irrelevant, and I don't read posts that claim "censorship", or dwell on your opinions about me, not about article content. Please re-read WP:CIVIL, focus on article content, and try again. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues I have with the fingernail quote. The secondary issues are that there seems to be no reliable source that indicates who made this statement. I'm not sure that the fact that it appears in a book makes it any more reliable, if all we can get is an attribution to an unnamed "rabbi speaking at Goldstein's funeral". The credentials of the book's author are impressive, but the lack of a contemporaneous source, and especially a name for this rabbi, should raise issues. As abhorrent as I find Goldstein's actions as a mass murderer (and as a fellow Orthodox Jew), the fundamental issue is that this quote is not relevant to the subject of the article. Goldstein didn't say it; the unnamed rabbi did. While that may well reflect on the rabbi and upon those who applauded the statement, there is no relevant connection here to Baruch Goldstein other than an implied connection between the statement and the article's subject, in violation of WP:BIO policy. The only reason I give any credence to the quote is Lustik's credentials as a historian. But the issue with including the statement has nothing to do with Lustik as a historian and everything to do with whether it is directly relevant to the subject of the article. It is clear to me that the statement violates relevant Wikipedia policy and should be removed. Alansohn 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alansohn:Jayjg. Alansohn. Evidently are not familiar with rules of evidence in Wiki or with the primary sources on this issue. Jayjg is thoroughly familiar with the first, but is meticulous in trying to find a loophole in them to back up his unscrupulous censorship of the citation I provided.

Let me remind you both:-


 * (1)'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.'


 * (2)'Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. . .In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views.


 * I provided a verifiable, reliable source from a major historian on Arab and Jewish relations. You are both endeavouring to get round this uncomfortable (for your respective POV takes on the case)fact by insisting that a 'verifiable, reliable source' is not enough, and that Lustik's quote should in turn be proven to be 'true'. This lame challenge violates the rule 'the threshold for inclusion is 'verifiability' not 'truth'. ' Thus when you say,'I'm not sure that the fact that it appears in a book makes it any more reliable', all you are saying is that you haven't read the rules on Wiki editing.


 * The remainder of your remarks is just 'sand-in-the-eyes' maoeuvering. Both of you are trying to limit the minority (i.e.negative material for BS's image) content of the page. Nota bene on (NPOV) A neutral point of view demands the fair, unbiased representation of 'all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles'. The view is 'significant' because it throws light on the milieu in which Goldstein acted, and was widely reported and subsequently hotly debated in newspaper like Haaretz and the New York Times. I presume the game at hand, with ring-ins and non-issues raised, is one of a war of attrition, to make me waste time here instead of writing wiki articles on a large number of topics, most of them on other subjects. I understand that, and am not intimidated by the prospect. I will keep posting the quote: I am retired, and have all the time in the world to keep on doing so, twice a day, until arbitration takes place.and cooler legal minds make a proper call. It is this kind of low censorship, via grinding and uninformed POV editing, which has given, as a noted historian told me recently, wiki articles on Israel-Arab relations a zero-reputation for reliability in the informed world.

Nishidani 10:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC), There is no "loophole" here. All you have done is provide a source claiming that an unnamed rabbi made a statement at his funeral. The statement was not made by the article's subject. The milieu in which the massacre occurred is well-covered by this article and demonstrates the background of the incident. There is a near infinite number of verifiable statements that exist in the universe -- The sun is 93 million miles from Earth, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, Bill Gates is a billionaire -- all of which might well belong in some Wikipedia article, yet none of these belong here. There is simply no connection between Goldstein and the statement. He didn't say it and it's not clear who said it. Given the lack of a nexus between the unnamed rabbi who made the statement and the article's subject, WP:BIO requires its removal. I will not try to determine your motives for insertion of this statement and I cannot understand how you could claim to "know" what my motives are. I am more than familiar with Wikipedia policy on these matters and more than willing to spend the time to ensure that it is followed in this case. Alansohn 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alansohn. Give me the wiki rule saying that a page on a person and his deeds must not include 'statement(s)  not made by the article's subject.'(That implies that all statements by third persons, after the subject's demise, on that person are not acceptable to wiki articles on the dead!)  I recall you to the fact that the citation from Lustik was posted in the paragraph dealing with his gravesite and commemoration, the phrase was one reported to be used in commemorating him. It is immaterial to the squabble as to who said it: Lustik, The New York Times, Haaretz, and Rabbi Alan Miller, all report that it was said. Miller even explained the Biblical allusion.  Therefore when you raise WP:BIO I would advise you (1)to go back and read it, esp. when it says, 'This guideline is not Wikipedia policy; however, these criteria are considered a fair test of whether a historical or living person merits an article at Wikipedia.' There is nothing on that particular page which rules out citing a reliable historian on what was said at Baruch Goldstein's funeral, in a section of the page devoted to 'commemoration'.Nishidani 13:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no context as to the statement, other than the fact that an unnamed rabbi is reputed to have said it. This may well reflect the opinion of the rabbi who said it and of the audience, but is unconnected to the individual. The quote is not a biblical allusion; it is a selective interpretation of Midrashic exegesis of a biblical statement that has nothing to do with fingernails, Arabs or their relative value in Jewish fingernails. The statement does not belong here, and the complete failure to provide any indication of who said it or the context in which it was stated only undermines the insistence that it be included. Alansohn 14:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll post it back tomorrow. It is pertinent to the heading on his Gravesite and Commeoration. Commemoration, I will remind you, refers to what is said of the defunct at his gravesite. Much more inflammatory material could be added, but I haven't. I will put it back tomorrow, and every other day, for I can see no basis in the Wiki rule book for your decision to eliminate it.Nishidani 14:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, it will be reverted immediately. I've also removed the voluminous dubious material you've inserted from other alleged sources. Let me give you a hint; a citation should list things like the name of an article. Oh, and what's "Yerushalayim"? Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, is there a point to adding the material you want to add? Does it improve the article or add any context to this bio? I tried to read everything you wrote and understand but my head is about to explode. Can I please get the short version since I am of a pretty simple mind but would like to understand your position. Anyways, --Tom 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg: Since you can't recognize the obvious, Yerushalayim is the English transliteration for a Hebrew newspaper known to foreigners by its English title 'The Jerusalem Post'. By the way, is Norton Mezvinsky full professor of history at Connecticut State Central University, in your personal view, which seems to be the criterion by which you judge things, a 'reliable historian' for Wiki or not. Let's sort this out, before preceding?


 * Tom. The article on Baruch Goldstein is notorious for what it does not say. There is no mention of his state-protected funeral in Jerusalem, of the fact that many quarters of the cirty were pasted up with posters praising the act (just as, when the Twin Towers went down, we saw TV coverage of certain Arabs celebrating), of the cortege through Palestinian villages back to Hebron, of the intense negotations conducted by the Kiryat Arba mayor Tzvi Katzover to obtain government support, and Army backing, for a funeral cortege to be led through the Arabs quarters of Hebron before concluding in a solemn ceremony to honour Goldstein. Katzover even threatened the President of Israel Ezer Weizman with a pogrom of Hebron Arabs if their demands were not met. There is no mention of the many Rabbis Dov Lior, Levinger, who praised him at the funeral. Levinger is quoted by a reliable source as saying the deaths of those 29 Palestinians moved him as did the death of flies. There is no mention of the thoroughly documented celebration in some Haredi communities, like that of Bnei Brak where joyous drinking and singing broke out when the news of the massacre arrived. There is no mention of Yad Eliahu Stadium event a few days afterward, when a Kiryat Arba spokesman was called up to speak and addressed the large crowd with words hailing BS as a martyr, or that the only person who protested, got a thorugh beating. There was, and will be, no mention of polls taken which indicate a 50/50 split on approval disapproval in Israel over the massacre etc.etc.etc.


 * You seem to dislike detail. Well, that is what history is about. On of the great mottos of modern thought, used by Aby Warburg for his London Institute of Art runs, 'Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail.' In English we say 'the devil is in the details'. An encyclopedia should not mess up an article with too much technical detail, but neither should it scant embarrassing facts. It should aspire to a comprehensive all-round perspective. The matter I added, clarifies misleading judgements made in the text as I found it. It is wrong for example to say that there is dispute about his treatment of Arabs as a civilian physician and while in the IDF. His IDF record is well known, and there is no doubt that Druze soldiers in his unit requested his transfer out of it because he had repeatedly made it known his halakhic scruples prevented him from treating Gentiles. There is a controversy about his treatment of Arabs in Kiryat Arba, which, I should remind you, is regarded widely throughout the world as a disgrace to the ideals of Zionism for its well-documented hostility to the Arab population, and the effective purging of the city of some 30,000 local Arabs in order to make a few hundred Kahane fanatics comfortable. Two days ago, the latter even complained of Arab boys playing football on a public square, and called in the army to chase them away to a rough patch on an incline if they still persisted. Fortunately, a compromise was reached, and the boys ended up playing football with the Israeli soldiers. In Kiryat Arba BS is known to have treated an Arab shot by the Israeli army, but only until a doctor with non-halakhic scruples could come and give the wounded man proper attention. Evidence also exists however that on several occasions he refused to lend a hand in assisting Arabs. Therefore, properly, I altered the confused text, and clarified the distinctions.

p.s. Don't try to read everything I write if it gets you a headache. I am only verbose in the discussion forums. My textual interventions are brief and synthetic, and footnoted. Forgive my windiness here, I am an old man.


 * "Since you can't recognize the obvious, Yerushalayim is the English transliteration for a Hebrew newspaper known to foreigners by its English title 'The Jerusalem Post'." is not only entirely uncivil, it completely baffled me as well. Without specifying that the term is being used to refer to a newspaper, the wikilink is a redirect to the city of Jerusalem. Above and beyond multiple grammatical errors that make some of the assertions unclear, without a title of an article, it is very difficult to try to confirm the source as required by WP:V, nor is there any indication that the source has been translated from Hebrew, as seems the case. If appropriate additional information cannot be provided, the source will be removed. Alansohn 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alansohn. A native hebrew speaker should know that when a newspaper source of that name is cited, it does not refer to the city of that name. If anything, the appropriate Wiki page should add a disambiguation, so that these misunderstandings do not recur. I was surprised at the remark. It is not uncivil to be ironical.If there are grammatical errors, then I pray for you to corrrect them. I have no pretensions to omniscience nor stylistic perfection, at least when writing on line, and welcome rephrasings, even by someone who might eventually challenge what I cite. The sources cited are in an historical work, which I will introduce, if this is not satisfactory. It is written by a full professor of history. Perhaps it would be simpler just to refer all quotes to that book? I'm quite willing to provide this additional information. Could I have the civility from you both to treat each item under discussion separately? To erase automatically everything associated with my username smacks of outright refutation of anything, without specific judgements on single elements. A little patience and I will try to retrieve, in the next few days (I am busy in a hospital tomorrow), the appropriate titles for the articles cited. Thanks.Nishidani 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the English language Wikipedia. The Jerusalem Post is an English language newspaper. Yerushalaim is a redirect to the City of Jerusalem. On Wikipedia, links refer to what they link to, not to what someone assumes a native speaker of a foreign language would interpret it to mean. Besides, any native speaker of Hebrew would interpret "Yerushalaim" as a reference to the city, not to a newspaper. I would love to correct the grammatical errors, but I'm neither sure of what was intended and I can't figure out what the source is so that I can try to deduce what was meant. I have deleted nothing. I have stated that I cannot possibly verify the information provided because it is unclear what publication it comes from (is it from The Jerusalem Post? I'm still not sure), nor do I know the title of the article. If it's made verifiable -- clearly specifying the publication and the article -- I will do my best to validate the information. If not, it will have to be removed. Alansohn 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, the "Jerusalem Post" is the "Jerusalem Post". Have you actually read the articles in question? How do you know about their contents? Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. That is a reasonable voice, and I thank you. If at times I have adopted a slightly peremtpory ironic tone at times, it is because I admit to being annoyed by automatic revert editing without sufficient explanation, especially by anyone who has not taken the trouble to read up on the topic. A large part of the controversies in this particular genre of article comes from disputes between qualified historians and many amateurs who have never written an article for review for a doctorate, a process requiring very close attention to what texts, even apparently neutral texts, are saying. I can find no convincing argument against my quotation from Lustik. His book is on Jewish fundamentalism, Baruch Goldstein was a Jewish fundamentalist, and the community he hails from its fundamentalist, on record -, no one can seriously dispute this - for extremist statements. Notwithstanding this, it is needlessly challenged, wasting my time and the editors (2) As to the new material, I have undertaken to either find, when I get back from hospital in a few days (we are writing sub specie aeternitatis here even here: a day or two is neither here nor there) the original newspaper headers for the respective articles, or, in lieu of that, the original book from which that information is taken. I apologize for the slipshod grammar. If you give me a hint where problems are 0an introductory word' or two, I will fix it in the meantime. RegardsNishidani 20:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg. Don't be coy! I have explained my understanding of the reference, which I admit requires clarification.The only Hebrew I have read so far is Chapters 1-4 of Genesis, and I apologize for my lamentable inability to read modern newspapers.  But I asked you politely to tell me if you accept Norton Mezvinsky, full professor of History at Connecticut State Central University, as a 'reliable source'. If not, why? For all the articles I cited are cited by him.
 * I see. So you're still trying to cite Shahak's book via the back door? WP:CITE is quite clear; "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Reliable sources only please, and only ones you have seen yourself. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayrg. You told me that Lustik wasn't enough and went out trying to find his original sources (see above), and then tried to contest them. With this lesson in mind, I cited the original sources. Now you tell me that is illegal. So why did you do the same thing with Lustik, whom you refused to trust? You are using double standards.


 * (2) What you write now tells me that you are simply unfamiliar with the books. I am not referring to the book authored by Shahak which you protested about, irrationally, earlier. I am referring to the book on Jewish Fundamentalism published in 1999 in collaboration with the noted American historian Norton Mezvinsky, professor at Connecticut State University. That you confuse the two is proof you are making judgements on the basis of names, and internet surfing, and have no familiarity with the book sources, or the disciplione of historiography. That is the source used, and one of the two is a qualified professional historian, and therefore a 'reliable source'.


 * To gather from your recent calls, all you look for is evidence on the net for backing up your editorial policies. Shahak was a Holocaust survivor, who ran through the worst places on the continent for Jews in WW2, and went to Israel to help build it. Shahak was a Chemistry professor yes. By background he was also deeply versed in the Jewish theological traditions he comments on. Many rabbis cited with honour in here speak on politics on a daily basis, and you see nothing wrong in that. Get a Holocaust survivor with a deep knowledge of Jewish religious lore to write on the subject, from a secular position, and you say he isn't competent. He had more knowledge about Judaism in his fingernail than anyone writing in here. Unless you can disqualify Norton Mezvinsky, the reliability of the work stands, since it is a contemporary historical source written with a recognized professional.


 * I suspect no one here who is familiar with the literature on Baruch Goldstein doubts the truth of what I quoted. What they want is me to verify it. Anyone fluent in Hebrew would of course use the appropriate books and research vehicles, and come up with the requisite verifications of source in 5 minutes. Suffice then to look at Lustik or the 1995 book in praise of Goldstein, entitled, 'Blessed the Male', and they would know nothing I cite was invented out of thin air.  I must alas, play what a great man, Ernest Gellner, informed me once, is called the role of a shabbos goy.Nishidani 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As before, Shahak was a chemist and polemicist; he is not a reliable source on any of these topics. Please properly source the material, and make sure it's relevant to Goldstein. Hint: An unknown, possibly non-existent, rabbi who comments at his funeral is not about Goldstein. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll repeat it. I am not citing Shahak, I am citing Shahak and Mezvinsky. So the source is not 'Shahak' the Chemist, but Shahak and Mezvinsky, the professional historian- Unless you are trying the 'guilt by association' gambit? Whatever, you persist in denying Mezvinsky's historiography by sheer association with a person whose writings you haven't read, but whom, I gather on internet hearsay, you dislike. Tutto qua.


 * As to your Herakleitean hints (wikipedia:Heraclitus, Greek nickname ho skoteinos), I gather you know who the New York Times was referring to. By all means enlighten me, as a matter of curiosity. If you can throw light on an error made by Lustik, by all means tell us, and Lustik and I for two will be delighted that precision has been attained. But in the meantime WIKIPEDIA policy is concerned with 'reliable sources', of which Lustik is one, and not with the 'truth' of the claims. Of course, if the truth of the claim comes out, all the better. We just write, 'Ian Lustik cites a remark made at the funeral according to which . .On the other hand, original research by Jayjg has established that the remark was not about Goldstein. His sources are'. All in a comfortable footnote. I look forward to the clarification of the 'truth content' then.Nishidani 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An anonymous, possibly mythical rabbi, who may have commented at Goldstein's funeral, is not about Goldstein. Regarding the rest, the book was co-authored by the chemist/polemicist Israel Shahak. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you repeat, so will I. (1)You have repeatedly interfered with the posting of a comment on Baruch Goldstein qua fundamentalist contained in a book written by Ian S. Lustick - Professor, Bess W. Heyman Chair, at the University of Pennsylvania. The only grounds for your censorship is that the quote is 'untrue' as quoted (though verifiable), or immaterial to BG. You do not document the former claim, which however is immaterial. You do not adequately justify the latter point, since the BG was a fundamentalist and the remark was reported as being mouthed to applause at his gravesite.


 * (2) You reject and censor citations from Israel Shahak, an eminent authority on Jewish fundamentalism, on the grounds he was also a Chemist at Tel Aviv University. Please note that anyone can wear two caps. Shahak was recognized as a reliable historian by the Council on Foreign Relations at Washington, whose house journal published his papers. If an important American think tank judges Shahak as an important source, your opinion on his reliability does not count.


 * (3) You reject anything that might be quoted on Jewish Fundamentalism from Norton Mezvinsky, on the grounds that the book he co-authored was written with Israel Shahak, a Chemistrty Professor. The gambit of smearing by association. Norton Mezvinsky is professor of history at Connecticut State Central University, with relevant Phd (1954) with many reputable publications to his credit.


 * (4) You and others reject Noam Chomsky, on the grounds that he is a linguist, not a specialist historian, notwithstanding his many historical works, which are not challenged for their lack of scholarly references. He is acceptable to MIT university, and even to West Point graduates as an authoritative commentator on Israel, being a Hebrew language expert and historian of the region. No, he is not acceptable to Jayjg. 'Reliable sources' are not by necessity by specialists in each discipline, but by figures of outstanding academic record. The rule is meant to keep junk from weirdo minorities off the Wikipedia pages, not to censor informed scholarship by men and women of public and academic standing who disagree with other reputable historians and writers. For your illumination, many of the classics of historiography were not written by professional historians, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, Livy, Sima Qian, David Hume, Henry Adams, etc. were not academically qualified as historians.Nishidani 09:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment began with the statement "your censorship". I didn't bother reading further. Feel free to try again, avoiding further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg Make civil, not tendentious, edits and you will get a civil answer. Regards Nishidani 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw my two cents into the fire here by contributing what I hope may be a useful citation. Mark Juergensmeyer, in his book Terror in the Mind of God, makes mention of Goldstein's funeral thus:

"At the funeral, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, head of the yeshivah located in Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, comforted the assembled followers of Goldstein by explaining that Gentile blood was worth less than Jewish blood.". Juergensmeyer's citation for this is "Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, quoted in Yossi Klein Halevi, "Kahane's Murderous Legacy," Jerusalem Report, March 24, 1994, p17."

Perhaps someone with better access to the primary source can find it, and see if the original quote is the same, or approximates the "fingernail" quote?Rpine75 07:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Israeli nationalists who come in to these pages to make a thousand critiques are not acting in good faith. They are trying to rehabilitate a murderer. The reason why they jump from position to position is that they don’t actually care about the spurious arguments they are making. Rather, they are just trying to find any argument they can to further their goals. Puma6374 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Israeli Terrorists/mass murderers
I don't understand, why can't he be in both categories, since it's pretty much agreed that he fits both. The two categories are distinctive, a terrorist is not necessarily a mass murderer, and a mass murderer is not necessarily a terrorist. 83.130.132.182 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a delicate point. I once reverted a text writing 'terrorist' to 'physician' on the simple grounds that Goldstein in the intro must be defined by his profession. He committed only one act of terrorism, which is of course a defining point. However, he was not a professional terrorist in the sense that, despite his association with organisations defined now as 'terroristic' groups, he worked as a doctor, and did not, again, as far as I know, make a career planning, assisting and carrying out terroristic operations. I think the sensible solution is to define him professionally as a 'physician' and then include him in the categories section as a 'terrorist', which is what he became by his act.


 * A second point. Thanks Alansohn for restoring 'at prayer'. I have been worried by that wounded figure of 150. It sounds rubbery and approximate, and I have read also the figure of 120 in various reports (from memory here). Perhaps it should be checked, and properly sourced, whatever the figure. Nishidani 07:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

the page on the massacre itself says 125. my guess would be that you're going to find no definite answer on this and the best you can do is say "approximately 150" or "sources put the number of wounded between 125 and 150." its not "important" in the sense that whether its 125 or 150 doesn't change the heinous nature of the act one bit, but for the sake of accuracy can anyone find some reliable sources or just change it to an estimate giving the high and low from the sources we do have? SJMNY (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Same reply as below, broken record :) How do reliable sources treat this? If they say "approxiamately 150" ect, then we should use that language. Thanks, --Tom 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * a quick google search shows that different sources give different numbers, how should we proceed in such an instance?SJMNY (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The arguments against him being a terrorist are pretty weak. Yes, he committed only one terrorist act; that's exactly the number of terrorist acts most suicide bombers commit. It's enough. If your grave side shrine is torn down under a law preventing monuments to terrorists you just might be a terrorist. His actions are fundamentally no different than those of the terrorists who committed the Passover Massacre. Until someone can explain why the Israeli government is wrong to count him as a terrorist it's nonsensical to let him escape the label. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragrap
I don't like the way it is phrased, it would lead one to believe that the Mosque is inside the cave when in fact it is built over/around the cave. I like to avoid editing controversial articles without talking about it first, does anyone have an opinion one way or the other?SJMNY (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do reliable sources say about this since I have no idea? How have other sources refered to the Mosque? This seems like semantics but I will defer to others with better knowledge. Thanks, --Tom 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the page on the cave itself says that "The Cave of the Patriarchs...is a series of subterranean caves located in a complex called by Muslims the Ibrahimi Mosque or Sanctuary of Abraham ..." this would indicate that the cave is within the mosque complex and not vice versa SJMNY (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice regarding this article
This article contains lots of stuff cited to "Shamgar Commission Minutes" and other unpublished sources. This is a very clear violation of the Wikipedia rules and all of that stuff is going to go. I know where it comes from: it is copied out of the adulatory pamphlet of Simmons which doesn't come close to meeting the Wikipedia definition of a "reliable source". Now a question: does anyone know where the report of the Shamgar Commission can be found? Zerotalk 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's go. The following are not acceptable sources by Wikipedia rules since they are not published. I am removing them from the article and either deleting the accompanying text or adding a citation request to it. Zerotalk 06:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Certificate of Esteem from the Medical Department of the district of Judea and Samaria, dated 22 September 1993; Certificate of Esteem and Thanks from the Commander of the Medical Command, dated Tishri 5754 (September 1993)
 * Recommendation for promotion on [Israel] Independence Day, signed by Major Dr. Yitzchak Ashkenazi, Local Medical Officer of the district of Judea and Samaria, dated 18 January 1994.
 * Official Death Certificate dated 9 March, 1994, issued by Ministry of Interior of the State of Israel.
 * Tel Aviv District Court Archives file I.S. 1160/94, Para. 4, 5 (February 11, 1998).
 * Shamgar Commission Minutes.

The Hindu
One cannot dispute Bhaduri wrote what he did, but I find it interesting that the New York Times, not a magazine known for its support of Israel, does not mention this discrepancy in the article which discusses the curfews in 1994, not 12 years later in 2006. Please see http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/03/world/west-bank-massacre-israel-eases-curfew-territories-ensuing-riots-deepen.html?scp=1&pagewanted=all. As such, I think that at the minimum, the sentence needs to be attributed to Bhaduri (which I have done), and we really should find a better source; one closer than one 12 years removed. -- Avi (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After scanning a large number of newspaper articles, it seems that the correct description is that all of Hebron was put under curfew but it wasn't enforced on the settlers. This is despite the observation that quite a lot of news stories spoke only of the Arabs being put under curfew.
 * Toronto Star, 26 February 1994: By midday the streets of Hebron were empty of Palestinians. Soldiers continued to ignore the Israeli settlers moving through the town with their ubiquitous automatic weapons, despite the curfew announced by the government.
 * Times, 26 February 1994: Even yesterday, after a curfew was imposed on Hebron, there were reports of heavily armed settlers being allowed to move about freely.
 * Agence France-Presse, 27 February 1994: Five hundred hardliners who live in the heart of Hebron have found themselves under the same curfew restrictions as the town's 70,000 Palestinians for the first time in Israel's history. However although the army announced that Kyriat Arba was a closed military zone and settlers could not leave, state radio reported that Jews were being allowed in and out.
 * Washington Post, 28 February 1994: Despite government claims that a curfew and other restrictions were also being placed for the first time on Jews living at the Kiryat Arba settlement near Hebron, it was clear to reporters there that Jews were being allowed to travel about under army escort, while Arabs were being forced to remain in their homes.
 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 28 February 1994: The government ordered a curfew of the settlers Friday after the massacre in the mosque. It was the first time such restrictions regularly imposed on Arabs were extended to Jews. But journalists in Hebron yesterday said they saw the usual column of gun-toting settlers strolling through Hebron.

Zerotalk 09:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, then please substitute a more chronologically germane piece than one 12 years removed. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Goldstein’s grave draws extremists"
The link redirects to http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/4555/goldstein-s-grave-draws-extremists/, and the text on that page is corrupted. The closest I could find is Segal's article from 1996 for the JTA, but that is no longer accessible on the JTA website and highbeam is a pay site http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-3125751.html. Suggestions? -- Avi (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

motivation
This was in the lead: he carried out the attack "after receiving word of an impending large Arab terrorist attack against Jews in the city." but doesn't occur elsehwere in the article. As it is a contentious claim, it should not be in the article until a citation is found for it. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah celebrations
Shuki is removing the following material, supported by citations from the Jerusalem Post and Yediot Ahronoth's web presence, Ynet News.


 * In 2010, Jewish residents in east Jerusalem's predominantly Arab Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood celebrated Purim by singing songs of praise for Baruch Goldstein next to their Arab neighbours. The party took place in a house from which an Arab family was evicted in August last year.

His argument is that the video is faked. However that is clearly original research on his part. If he can get a source to say that, then great, otherwise we can't accept his personal research on this video. Factsontheground (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any news source reporting the video as a fake. If someone has one feel free to post it. If you still want to put it in I don't see anything stopping you. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"murder"
Certain right wing extremist groups like to use the words "murdered" and "victim" with Goldstein, however real sources do not do so. Could Shuki please explain why he or she has repeatedly reverted to include the cat "Israeli murder victims"?  nableezy  - 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a tough call. He was the victim of vigilante justice while unarmed, certainly, which could technically be called murder, however richly he may have deserved it. IronDuke  23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Vigilante murder is still murder. FWIW, I did not insert the cat, but merely reverted its unjustified removal. --Shuki (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What reliable source says he was killed in a circumstance that any reasonable person would call murder? This is just a myth.  Zerotalk 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I say make a cat "People killed in the West Bank" that "People murdered in the West Bank" is a sub-cat of and include Goldstein in the "killed in the West Bank" cat. Calling this man a "victim" is not something that most, if any, respectable sources do.  nableezy  - 05:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Goldstein was overcome as he paused to reload and was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher and other objects. That is now both the survivors and the inquiry described it. I'm sure that most reasonable people would call it self-defence. At the very least, calling it murder without an official source explicitly calling it that is original research. The claim he was murdered comes only from Goldstein's supporters. Goldstein's widow tried to get recognized as the widow of a terror victim and was refused (JP, 12 April 1996). Zerotalk 07:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Goldstein was disarmed, then beaten to death and, I believe, torn to shreds, after he had been subdued. I wouldn't call that self-defense, though "murder" implies malice aforethought, which was obviously not the case here. What about "manslaughter?" Does that make sense as a compromise position? IronDuke  20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but manslaughter is also not ok. Only what the reliable sources say is ok. Anything that suggests a crime was committed against Goldstein needs a damn good source.  So far I have not seen one.  Zerotalk 00:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Source from Haaretz provided. Zero, this is a RS. Why are you taking this personally and getting emotional. Murderers are murdered also. There are hundreds of articles on WP about criminals who were later ex-justice murdered. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an interview with "an extremist West Bank settler" in which the "extremist West Bank settler" argues that Goldstein was murdered and that the death certificate backs that up. Haaretz doesnt say that, an "extremist West Bank settler" does. And "murder" implies a crime. Was anybody charged with a crime for killing Goldstein? And can you provide a real source that calls this man a "victim"?  nableezy  - 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And just so we put this "extremist West Bank settler"'s views in perspective, this is what he says:"It wasn't a massacre, only one person was murdered, Goldstein. Since the State of Israel is a state of law, there is only one body allowed to declare that a person is a murderer, and that only in an official courtroom. Baruch Goldstein, may God avenge his blood, was not brought before a court, so it's impossible to say legally that he murdered."Compare that with Shamgar commision:"The massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron was a base and murderous act, in which innocent people bending in prayer to their maker were killed. It is an unforgivable act"Shuki, you are using an "extremist West Bank settler"'s warped view that what Goldstein did was perfectly acceptable and he was the only person "murdered" in this act. You really want to do that?  nableezy  - 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, Your cite just confirms my theory that the "murder" claim is only made by Goldstein's fanatical followers. It might be useful in the "Veneration" section, but we don't post claims of extremists as if they are true. Zerotalk 00:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Zero here: at best, the interview with Pinner establishes that Pinner says the death certificate indicates murder -- hardly sufficient for the category. In my judgment it would be WP:UNDUE to add "Pinner says" to the article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that we can depend on Haaretz, a reliable source on WP, to not include a lie or to mention if an interviewee is not telling the truth. In this case, the Haaretz article journalist does not deny this. Essentially, the articles confirms that the Goldstein was murdered as does the Shamgar Commission that investigated the event. --Shuki (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Haaretz does not support this claim, an "extremist West Bank settler" does. And where does the Shamgar Commision use the word "murder" for Goldstein's death?  nableezy  - 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shuki, there is no reason to expect Haaretz to remove lies or criticize them in interviews. This is not journalistic practice. Haaretz doesn't even criticize the settler's bizarre, impossible, logic: one can't call Goldstein a murderer because he wasn't declared one in a court - but one must call his death a murder just because Pinner says a death certificate says so.John Z (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is journalistic practice, certainly these days when every single media outlet has an agenda and/or journalists who feel the need to educate the public. His death was murder because he was unarmed and 'harmless'. I can understand (not condone) the rage, somewhat like Natan-Zada's murder too, though that was pathetic since he was handcuffed at the time. Anyway, the Shamgar commission ruled it was murder and apparently that is what is on Goldstein's death certificate. I suppose in due time someone will be able to provide verifiable sources for this ti counter the OR and POV decisions by Zero0000 and you. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You won't find a reliable source that "the Shamgar commission ruled it was murder" because it didn't. And the death certificate was issued long before the Shamgar commission started. Death certificates are issued soon after death and include a cause of death according to a physician's examination of the body. I'd like to know what that certificate actually says, since "murder" is not a cause of death and would not normally appear there even in cases where there really was a murder. Zerotalk 05:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It’s interesting to call the man who just killed 29 people “harmless” Puma6374 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein's motives
I moved this from the article for discussion. I think it is a violation of BLP to add unverifiable speculation about Baruch Goldstein's motives. The story of Purim actually had the king allow the Jews kill the adversaries, not a vigilante event, so not clear how this conspiracy theory is legitimate in the article. "According to Ian Lustick, 'by mowing down Arabs he believed wanted to kill Jews, Goldstein was reenacting part of the Purim story'."

--Shuki (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Shuki, nothing in WP:BLP can apply to anything written about Baruch Goldstein since he's dead. Also, the truth of anything written about his motives is not verifiable.      ←   ZScarpia  22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Has there ever been any research into the veracity of the claims that he was preventing an Arab attack, or it taboo to even ask?Pedantrician (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs massacre for altogether too much argument on that point. Zerotalk 01:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He's a mass murderer who was taken down by the people he was slaughtering. That's all that's concrete.  As far as I've read, he didn't leave a note explaining his reasons for plotting to murder dozens of innocent people, so anything written about motivation is nothing but conjecture.  Let's stick to the facts and describe them in as objective a manner as we can.


 * May Baruch Goldstein rot in hell. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Baruch Goldstein
By chance, I found this picture of the man. Perhaps someone can install it on the page?

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=goldstein4sf.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/i/goldstein4sf.jpg

Hope this helps.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.108.134 (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Extremists?
The words Israeli Extremists was used. Aren't there Arab Israelis? Would any of THEM be encouraged by what this man did? I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.75 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist?
Not that i don't think this man falls under this category per se but it is almost universal for wikipedia articles to not use that word when describing a figure in it's header. I mean even osama bin laden is not referred to as a terrorist in his introduction. Duhon (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely that's a defect with the Bin Laden article that ought to be rectified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The removal of the CAT Jewish Religious Terrorism is pointy. The He's a Kahanist ergo that is not needed is specious.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The categorization of his act as terrorism and the person as a terrorist, is supported on the vast majority of reliable sources, and therefore I suggest keeping this category. Bin Laden was obviously also a terrorist and belongs in the category. Marokwitz (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Section on mainstream reaction?
I'm still very new at editing stuff here, or I'd give this a try myself; since I don't trust my ability to do it correctly yet, I'm asking somebody else. At the moment, there exists zero in this article about the reaction to Goldstein's massacre by anyone except the small cluster of Kahane supporters. This leaves a strong impression that that's the *general* reaction among Israelis or among Jews, which was certainly not the case. There was an overwhelming outpouring of shame, guilt, revulsion, and sorrow among the vast majority of the Jewish population both inside and outside of Israel; and anyone who sees an article which ends on a section about veneration and celebration of the murderer isn't going to have the slightest idea that any of that is true.

Almost every Wikipedia article about a single, sudden incident in world history ends with a section about the reaction from the world at large. The lack of such a section, while -- in the same position -- there is one about one specific *type* of reaction, is deeply misleading. The article's objectivity and completeness would be much improved by placing the "Veneration and celebration" section as a subheader under a general "Aftermath" header (much the way the 9/11 page, or the Oklahoma City bombing page have), and adding another couple of subheaders under the same category -- one for mainstream Jewish reaction, and perhaps one for reactions from around the rest of the world as well (I don't even know what the response was within the Muslim countries of the Middle East, for example; and I'd like to).

Here's a few starter sources for the response section, just to prove the basic point about the mainstream Jewish reaction in Israel. I'm sure there are more and better out there: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/27/world/west-bank-massacre-massacre-leaves-israelis-shamed-sad-scared-what-s-ahead.html http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/26/world/west-bank-massacre-american-jewish-groups-horrified.html

In addition, for context, it would help to mention somewhere the size of the Kach/Kahane Chai groups of which Goldstein was a member, and which are being described as celebrating. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the State Department claims them to have "an overlapping core membership of fewer than 100 members." http://www.cfr.org/israel/kach-kahane-chai-israel-extremists/p9178 That makes a serious difference in the way a reader would understand the large section on Goldstein's veneration by the group, and it is nowhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PocketNaomi (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It gives a lot of space for a very very small minority. It's certainly notable, but should be more or less proportionate to its scale. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jewish physicians
I don't think this category is justified, and it seems to me like blatant Overcat. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad slaughtered entire tribes of Jews, but he's not called a terrorist.
Why the double standards against Jews, Wikipedia? If Muhammad's a hero, then Baruch Goldstein is also a hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.249.162 (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Check Criticism of Muhammad, many do call him a terrorist. Regardless, the comparison is inept. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  20:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity of tombstone translation
The text (introduction, last paragraph) gives “He gave his life for the people of Israel, its Torah and land" as the translation of the tombstone line (visible in the photo in link [7]) beginning …מסר נפשו למטנ טם ישראל (msr nsfu lm'n 'm ysral …). Idiomatically, in English, that would usually mean that he died for them. Literally, however, it could alternatively mean that he lived for them.

So what is the correct translation (alternatively, is the original Hebrew deliberately ambiguous)?

I'm wondering whether a more accurate, and unambiguous, translation would be "He devoted …"? Or "He gave up …"?

I'm not a Hebrew speaker, so I have to use a dictionary. Everything I say below is taken from Ben-Yehuda's Pocket English-Hebrew Hebrew-English Dictionary, I do not claim any other knowledge:

מסר (msr) is not given as a translation of "give", or vice versa. מסור (msur) means (and only means) the adjective "devoted" (or "slanderer"). מסר (msr) means "deliver, transmit, inform against". "Devote" is translated as the variant התמסר (hsmsr) (or הקדיש, hqdys).

"gave" appears wrong, though "gave up" may be correct.

Is there an idiomatic Hebrew phrase for "he gave his life" (ie, died)? If not, the Hebrew appears to mean either "He delivered (or gave up) his life" or "He devoted his life".

Can some native modern-Hebrew speaker please throw some light on this? Hoppygoldfish (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Corrections: מסר נפשו למען עם ישראל   Zerotalk 01:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything I write here is to aid translation, and should not be taken as an endorsement of the subject or his actions.
 * I am not sure about the whole phrase, but מסר נפשו would mean the he self-sacrificed (up to and including giving his life). It is often used to describe Jewish martyrs. In at least modern contexts it is also used to describe making significant self-sacrifices for the one's Judaism or the Jewish people. טם ישראל as you may have already figured out is the a phrase meaning the Jewish people. It literally means "nation of Israel", but it is used to describe the Jewish people, not necessarily Israelis (although I am more familiar with religious Hebrew used in the diaspora that Ivrit -- modern Israeli Hebrew). 74.83.67.36 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Al-Shuhada Street

 * In the early 2000s, the street was completely reopened to Palestinian vehicular traffic, however the shops remained closed. The street was closed again to Palestinians after the Second Intifada began.

This doesn't make any sense. If the Second Intifada began in late September 2000, that's less than a year of time when the street was reopen (also assuming that the government opened it on January 1, 2000). Plus the fact tag is two months old so I've removed it pending better information. hbdragon88 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Neo-Zionist political violence
Referring to this, I suggest to create a new category: category:Neo-Zionist political violence (subcategory of: category:Zionist political violence) to distinguish between pre-48 and post-67 "political violence" and also to take into account that nowadays Zionism becema an ambigous word. What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No mind ? Meaning full approval ;-) Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticef this. Naturellement, . .Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * However, a temporal distinction might not capture the continuities between say Lehi and its modern heirs. In a sense that tradition has just changed from an ultramontane secularism, if you will permit an oxymoron, to ultramontaine religious Zionism. I think neo-Zionism is not well defined.Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani,
 * Per my understanding, or let's say in my mind, it is well-defined.
 * Zionism, and the political violence that went with it, refers mainly to the events before 1948
 * Neo-Zionism and the political violence that goes with it, refers to the events after 1967.
 * There are also huge differences between both in the ideology (even if there are always links). Zionism targetted the settlement in Palestine of a Jewish Home and got some international recognition. It was more a nationalist movement with the positive roots of building a new future but with a lack of empathy and consideration for the local population. Neo-Zionism refers to the colonisation of Palestinian territories. It has no recognitation. The roots are religious and mostly fanatical and the view of the relation with the other is purely based on racism. The sociology of the political violence between both is different and I think they should not be mixed. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While you are undoubtedly correct, a category name that uses a word that isn't all that common will make it more onerous to add articles to the category. Articles on recent political violence by people claiming Zionist motivation will be hard to add unless there is a source specifically calling them neo-Zionist. I'm not sure that the extra precision will be worth the trouble it causes. Zerotalk 19:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the sociological consideration that the history of Zionism shows the rising ascendancy of that form of radical Zionism, from Zeev Jabotinsky onwards, which though marginal to the secular Zionist mainstream in the early decades of the Mandate, came to produce many of the dominant figures in Israeli politics over the last three decades. Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert. Benjamin Netanyahu, Moshe Arens and many other politicians (List of Irgun members). Indeed neo-Zionism is the triumph of the radical minority, perhaps because they are Zionist realists who play hardball, and don't equivocate, as did the old Zionist majority, about what Zionism by the logic of its project, necessarily leads to. In short, there is nothing new about neo-Zionism except its willingness to sell out the old secularist vision by welding its destiny to the messianic world of radical religious groups.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah the old Ashkenazi leftist have fallen, and are falling across the Diaspora, good their arrogance will not be missed. Neo-Zionism is a meaningless term meant to insinuate shadows of Neo-Nazism. No one calls themselves a Neo-Zionism.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Stating that the application of the affix 'neo-' automatically insinuates an allusion to Nazism (by analogy with neo-Nazism) is frankly stupid. By that token, neo-liberalism, neo-Christianity, neo-paganism etc., also have ineludible fuehrer undertones. Pluto makes judgements based on textual evidence and a command of the relevant historical literature, so this is not (as you offensively dismiss it) 'blah, blah, blah' except for those unfamiliar with the scholarship.
 * 'the effect of the second Palestinian intifada was to re-empower neo-Zionism,'(Ephraim Nimni,The Challenge of Post-Zionism: Alternatives to Fundamentalist Politics in Israel, Zed Books, 2003 p.29). There are three current terms, Zionism, neo-Zionism, and post-Zionism in common usage.
 * Asima Ghazi-Bouillon,Understanding the Middle East Peace Process: Israeli Academia and the Struggle for Identity, Routledge 2009 pp.118ff.
 * Ian Richard Netton (ed.,) Orientalism Revisited: Art, Land and Voyage, 2013 pp.155ff.
 * I like Zero doubt the distinctions are useful: as the literature often states, 'neo-Zionism' itself often just accentuates elements already present in the early history of the Zionist movement, but the words are widely attested, and we are the dull amanuenses or ventriloquists of the state of the art, and are under an obligation to reflect it faithfully. Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baruch Goldstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051114140828/http://archives.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/29/israel.goldstein/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/29/israel.goldstein/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baruch Goldstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112230634/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112230634/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

10,000 visitors claim
Reading the BBC news website provided as a citation for this claim indicates it came from a single Jewish extremist. Any specific claim about the number of visitors is on its face extremely dubious given that it is unlikely anybody was ever actually recording such data. Moreover the man who made the claim had a strong incentive to exaggerate the number. It is quite likely he would invent this datum for sake of making his particular ideology seem more popular than other data, say for example the fact that he was one of only about 40 people celebrating at the grave on one particular Purim, would make it seem. Whichever Wikipedia editor then converted the BBC's factual reporting of one man's evidence-free claim into some kind of proven fact with the formulation "At least 10,000 people had visited the grave by the year 2000" committed a grave error. A simple attribution of the claim to its source, one Mr. Marzal, Jewish extremist, would be enough to correct this misinformation. As per our rules I shall assume it was simply an honest good-faith mistake. Nevertheless it a mistake that deserves to be corrected. 04:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Qualter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.208.187 (talk)
 * Im on two minds as to whether to remove it entirely or not, but for now Ive attributed it as you are quite right. Thank you, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2020
Please remove "mass murderer" from Baruch Goldstein's wikipedia page. This title is not even used for many other people featured on Wikipedia who were mass murderers of millions of people. At least Baruch Goldstein shot the Arabs in question because they were planning a massacre against Jews that very day, knowingly giving up his life to save many other Jews, despite the fact that he had a wife and six children, aside from his well needed role as physician who helped both Jews AND Arabs. If you have questions on this, you can contact me at sboyer972@gmail.com. 184.103.203.192 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , with prejudice... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to add citation
In the section "Immigration to Israel" on the words "against Jewish laws" I suggest adding a sorce reference: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-Kochavim-Chapter-Ten.htm#v2 --HaMagiah (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to correct note about tomb reconstruction
Hello, It seems that the article is mistaken in that it says a tomb has been reconstructed for this individual. Rudimentary research shows that he has a gravestone, inscribed with Hebrew text, similar to any other Jew or ultra-Orthodox Jew in Israel, but I would not call it a tomb. It is just a grave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.229.17 (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Mass murderer"

 * "Mass murderer" should be dropped as no other terrorist biographies hold such a downplaying term. I propose changing "mass murderer" in the first line to "terrorist", on par with the Ayman al-Zawahiri article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds right to me. I don't think it downplays whatever Goldstein did. It just looks like bad English and unprofessional for an encyclopedic project. Perhaps -- "was the culprit of a mass-murder" is a reasonable option. 77.137.73.171 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Should "Extremist" be in the article's lead?
The term "Extremist" is one of the contentious words that should be looked out for when in the lead. Seeing as these terms should only be used in the body, should the term be removed from the article's lead? --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There are a few exceptions, and I would suggest that this may be one of those instances. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What might those few exceptions be? If you look at my previous edits on removing the term "Terrorist", they seemed just fine. --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 21:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted in the thread above, this page is probably getting off lightly not getting the 'terrorist' label. 'Extremist' or 'fundamentalist' is actually the lighter touch here. Let's see, in the lead alone we see that the subject participated in a terror attack of such magnitude that it got his entire political group designated as terrorist, and his tomb was dismantled after an Israeli law outlawing monuments to terrorists. On the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, we have Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin describing Goldstein as a "degenerate murderer" and "a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism". So yeah, it's a light touch. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We've "looked out for" it. Now it can stay.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)